Talk:Same-sex marriage
Perspectives? Should we leave this on the article page? It's highly redundant and it's against the "official" policy: "An article page is typically a group statement" -- Blackdog 15:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :Its against the policy of typical wikis, but I was under the impression that it appeared on this page, as well as many others in this wiki, because its creators wanted to have a place for various personal perspectives in the articles here. --Whosawhatsis 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not sure how it appeared, and who promoted it, however it's pretty unreadable and redundant. (I wonder if anyone had patience to read all those opinions, I surely didn't). -- Blackdog 00:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC) :::There aren't /THAT/ many of them (yet), and I have read them all, mostly as they were added. I can't find the origin of these sections, I think the software's indexing system is lagging behind this wiki's current rapid activity. Anyway, it seems to be the current de facto standard, if not official policy, to allow them in articles like this one, so I say stick with the standard until it changes. --Whosawhatsis 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ::Apparently this is the person who did it: 75.24.182.141 Interesting how one anonymous person can create a "de facto standard". In my opinion is a bad standard, of course people want to express their opinions, but I don't think the article page is the right place, it creates messy articles and add unnecessary redundancy. I would like to hear a third opinion (or more) about the issue. -- Blackdog 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC) :::It appears that that user was behind much of the propagation, but its the number of users who have contributed to it rather than removing it that makes it a standard. If it's going to be removed, it should be removed from all of the articles that in which it appears, and that's a lot of content by a lot of different users to delete unilaterally. I don't think moving it to talk sections would be appropriate, as they're really for discussion of the article, not the subject of the article. If you want to pursue a consensus on removing them, feel free. I just don't want to see it inconsistently deleted here only. It should be discussed as a policy change/clarification rather than a change to this one article, and as such should not be discussed in this one talk section. May I suggest Forum:INTRODUCTION, where "75.24.182.141" has already talked about the practice. --Whosawhatsis 02:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ::::What about the approach taken by Nhprman on the Marijuana Page, and discussed in the forum at Forum:Straw Men in Campaigns Wikia? The approach being to have a separate page, linked to at the top of the article, for perspectives? In a political discussion or debate, I think it is good to have this opportunity to sound off, but the article page itself is probably not the write place. - Kbal11 03:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ::I asked User_talk:Jimbo Wales but I got no response to this specific question, see though the answer to the other question maybe it gives you a better idea what he wants to do with camplaigns.wikia I am not for deleting anything, I'm for moving those to talk pages since it doesn't make sense in the main article. Anyway as I said before I'm looking for other opinions... -- Blackdog 03:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Discussion Points Requests for Editing this Page Please feel free to refine or strengthen any argument that you agree with. If a point has yet to be addressed, feel free to create a new topic. If a point is brought up that you do not agree with, attempt to disprove it on the other side's argument, or create a counterpoint. If we delete the agreements we do not agree with, this cannot succeed as a forum for free speech. Countering an argument you do not agree with in the same paragraph is not fair to the opposing argument. Respect every one in their right to formulate their own argument. Respect truly free speech. :If you feel a comment is in the wrong place, please move it instead of deleting it, unless it's just patent nonsense (remember, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make their comment garbage). --Anphanax 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :If a person disagrees with an argument, it is up to THEM to find a proper place to put it. It is not appropriate to put an argument opposed to marriage under the heading "In favor of Gay Marriage". --Nhcollegedem 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::I think Counterpoint would be an apropriate sub-heading to use in this situation -- Blackdog 19:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Removing someone's comment without giving a reason is typically considered rude, as they may have spent some time on it. Don't destroy other people's work simply because you don't like where it was placed. --Anphanax 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::It would also be good time to practice Good Faith, defined on wikipedia. In other words, if your comments vanish, don't be paranoid. People make mistakes, and people may have had a good reason to remove your comment (although it's important to leave a summary if you make that sort of edit). It's highly unlikely there's some conspiracy aimed at you or your comments.--Anphanax 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Article Structure Can anyone please tell me how this topic has been edited in a useful way? It hasn't. It's a mish mash of personal opinions without any structure whatsoever. This will be fine-- once we manage to create some sort of ground to build off of and discuss. Right now we are building on quicksand, and it will sink farther and farther into unintelligible chaos. How do you propose we fix this? I think we should take the time to write out the various accepted platforms and perspectives on gay marriage, and then create a separate area for this sort of discussion to take place, using the facts to debate the pros and cons of the issues. That will give a solid basis for easy research, lending to the better informed opinion for many people, should they take the time to read and comprehend. THAT is the goal of this wiki, to raise the bar for discussion, not simply throw opinions into the wind. Slacksimus 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :When I got here the page was completely empty. I made the first "personal opinion" post, because I was trying to get the discussion started. If people have a problem with that, I'm perfectly happy to go back to just blogging and not defacing your pretty wiki with my personal opinions.--Kg6cvv 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I agree with the first post. I think the purpose of this wiki is to present coherent arguments, not individual opinions. I think a major problem to overcome is who decides on the structure of representing this debate. I would propose that we seperate this into for and against gay marriage, and then each individual opinion will be organized by why. Even better would be to edit these opinions together and if a user arrives that does not see his / her opinion represented could edit themselves in. Another problem I forsee, especially for gay marriage, would be bigotry / hateful speech. Regardless of it's validity (or lack thereof) the wiki should represent the entire spectrum on opinion. If someone condemns homosexuals (and therefore is opposed to gay marriage) then there opinion should be represented. It should still be a gr ammatically correct and coherent argument, but should not be removed. --Bubaflub 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure where to put this, and as mentioned above the main article is far from complete, but I'd like to make a quick few points on the subject at hand. 1) I believe that homosexuals deserve every single civil right that I do as a heterosexual. 2) I believe that the institution of "marriage" predates the United States of America, and has been historically defined as a union between a man and woman, and that this opinion is far too deeply embedded in our collective culture to be ignored. 3) I believe that any attempt to legislate this issue politically is an attempt to legislate subjective morality, which I oppose. 4) I would like to see a private sector solution to this. My suggestion: offer homosexuals incorporation as an S Corp or LLC. Legally, they can be listed "partners" of one another (or any other title they choose), and can incorporate all joint finances, insurance, legal authority (i.e. power of attorney), etc. into this new legal entity. This protects the civil rights of all homosexuals, recognizes their struggle for justice, preserves the identity of "traditional" marriage, and best of all, could be done TODAY without involving our already over-burdened (over-active?) Federal Government. As far as I know, homosexuals are currently free to host parties of any size, and include any religious figures who choose to attend. Thus, they can have a wedding, and list each other as husband and husband or wife and wife in their official (state-issued) articles of incorporation. This resolves everything but an altogether moot legal technicality. If any of these opinions are useful to the article, please enjoy. Your pal, Zaphod Tralfamadore. I think that we need to keep discussion, or undermining comments out of the arguments listed in the article. I will delete personal discussions that happen on the pro-marriage side, because I think they have no place in an article. Discussions on the topic need to happen in the 'discussions' page. I think one should feel free to refine and strengthen an argument, but not to undermine or question it in the article. If a point has not been brought up, bring it up. If it has, and you don't agree with it, read the opposing side and see if your counter argument is listed. Respect this as a forum for free speech.--Nhcollegedem 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :Seems like discrimination to me. If you're going to remove "pro-marriage" comments, you might as well remove "anti-marriage" comments as well. We might as well just recommend this article for deletion if you're going to delete any discussion with a hint of pro or anti gay marriage. This article is one which allows for multiple viewpoints, as it isn't titled "Arguments For Gay Marriage". Don't restrict free speech, thanks. --Anphanax 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Counterpoint I hope no one has a problem with me using the term counterpoint. What I mean is that each argument should not only be brought up but some attempt to refute or otherwise bring the argument into contention. If all of the arguments couldn't be brought into this type of contention, then there ovbiously wouldn't be any debate left.--Bob 11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I think that counter points should occur in each separate piece of For and Against. So, if you see a point that you disagree with in For, you should write why that point is in contention in Against, because the nature of that refutation would support Against. It will also prevent the page from becoming a series of points and counterpoints. Do you agree? Slacksimus 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I don't agree. For example this comment would have no place in other part of the page, it makes sense only if it's attached to your point/opinion. -- Blackdog 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::I would prefer the arguments remain separate, and answer arguments posed by another argument as they would from something independent from the wiki. Many of the arguments posed are unoriginal, so it is not necessary to answer them immediately. Doing so makes the article look exactly like a message board, which I think we can do better than. I suggest constantly evolving essays, each one answering the other one's arguments. Makes it look nicer and more scholarly. Right now the 'Pro' argument looks the nicest, though I think it could stand to be a bit more organized. The 'Con' argument looks very messy and is a bit of a pain to read.--Ferguson 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC) General Discussion Why should the government be in the business of defining marriage at all? It seems to me that this should all be in the purview of contract law so that nobody ever has to be subject to having others of differing beliefs tell them whether or not they can call their particular relationship "marriage." Since it's probably not that likely that the government will ever start minding its own business about such things, I think it would be preferable to leave it to the states, because it's a lot easier to move from state to state than to leave the country. --Kg6cvv 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :The answer to your question is quite simply, "most people don't agree with you, and they never will." Most people do not want their marriages to be governed by contract law and most do want the government and other large institutions to subsidize families in some basic ways, like health insurance benefits, baseline "rights" so divorces don't end in destitution, etc. It doesn't matter how much "sense" your ideas make, it is just never going to happen that way. ::This sounds like a bandwagon argument if I've ever heard one. People didn't agree that blacks were the equals of whites for a long time, but that didn't mean it wasn't a fight worth fighting. People feel threatened by the thought that government may define marriage as being between any two people as much as others feel threatened by government defining it as between a man and a woman. Having government not define marriage at all seems like the least threatening situation to me. --Kg6cvv 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) It will never be preferable to leave it to the states. What if we had left racial segregation to the states? As a nation we need more compassion and understanding.--66.229.43.175 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :Is there any choice other than to leave it to the state? Marriage by definition is a legal status granted by the state, so therefore it must have some specific legal definition. I think that a "separation of bedroom and state" might be helpful. There are symbols that bear respect. While 'compassion and understanding' are important, and nobody deserves discrimination and abuse, there are some ideas afoot as palatable as "2+2=3". Enjoying and appreciating all good neighbors as people is one thing; acquiescing to an idea I feel untenable is another. Likely, those on the other side would feel the same about some of my beliefs. Let us disagree agreeably. But what about those who believe that to allow gay marriage erodes a fundamental American value? How can the two viewpoints be reconciled? CitizenJohn 01:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :There's the rub. How do you balance the value of Privacy with the value of ... Um, what value prevents Gay Marriage? I know there's the Dogma of one of the major religions, but the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah and Islamic Koran were not used to write the Declaration of Independence. And the value of Bigotry, Prejudice and Fear of what is different have never seemed positive to me. Honestly, I just don't understand what prevents us from recognizing people as people and letting them live without fear of persecution from people who just hate without reason. Chadlupkes 02:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: While people who embrace homosexuality may face levels of persecution it's not the government's job to force people to accept and approve of this lifestyle. I also hope you're not associating "the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah, and Islamic Koran" with "Bigotry, Prejudice, and fear of what is different". The only role the government should have in protecting homosexuality should be preventing hate crimes against these individuals. Every person, no matter the race, creed, political views, faith, or sexuality is entitled to protection by the government against those who hate. :::Actually, and no offense intended to anyone here, I do associate the dogma with prejudice, because I've been on the receiving end of that bigotry. And I know it comes directly from the religous dogma of the big three, because I was told as much. :::If the only role is protection of individuals, we fail. There is no adequate way to 'prevent' hate crimes if we continue to allow the dogma to be taught that it's ok to hate. Giving minority voices the ability to file a lawsuit or something else after they have been beat to a pulp doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. And the issue of approved marriage granting hundreds of government rights automatically, while not granting those rights to couples that are not 'approved' also fails to prevent, because it automatically creates a minority of the underserved, and a sense of entitlement for those who subscribe to the hate dogma that they are correct and thus have the right to discriminate even if the law says otherwise. :::Sorry, but I've been thinking on this and living it for decades. Chadlupkes 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I know some people out there do not agree with the idea of gay people getting married, but why not? What harm can it do? - JM, July 5th 19:50 Pacific. -I agree with JM. Do people really have a right not to be offended? I'd like to note that this issue comes along before every midterm election. It's a fear mongering tool used (very effectively) by the Republicans. -MAssMedia :People don't have a right not to be offended but if you give people someplace to go where they won't be offended all the time, they are less likely to try to force you not to offend them. Smaller polities are better. --Kg6cvv 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :You know it works both ways right? I'd just like to say that gay marriage should be a non-issue. I frankly do not care if two people who love each other get married who are of the same sex. Even if it is "offensive to god" you have no say in their lives because we have freedom of religion here in America. You cannot force your religious beliefs on others. Another point is to ask yourself if gay marriage is allowed, is it really going to affect your life in a harmful way? What possible harm can come of it? People need to wise up and be more accepting of others. Gay marriage is not a problem and you should not care about what type of people get married. Sheesh. :What are your thoughts on incest? --Jeolmeun 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::How is incest germane to this discussion? No one in the gay marriage debate has suggested that allowing same-sex members of the same family should be allowed any more than it is allowed for opposite-sex members of the same family. Your question may have been genuine but it comes across as a straw-man. Jdiggans 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :::Why are you so closed minded? What is wrong with members of a family having sex? -- Blackdog 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::::The logical conclusion here is that ALL marriage types are arbitrary. They are socio-cultural creations - all boundaries and restrictions are not fixed and natural. For me, the key point is irreducibility: an incestual and polygamous marriages, while not inherently bad have a high potential for abuse of power by one or more parties. They are more prone to coercion and submission. A partnership is the simplest form of human love: that is the only type that should be legally sanctioned. -I often hear opponents to gay marriage complain that they think allowing gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope. So probably polygamy comes next. After polygamy I guess it's a child molesting free for all. I don't see child molestation becoming popular, but I think the slippery slope issue needs to be analyzed and a good counter to that way of thinking needs to be developed. : Shouldn't those who suggest it to be a 'slippery slope' come up with some credible path that justifies this assertion? I, for one, have never been able to explain why granting same-sex marriage could at all be construed as some kind of moral support for polygamy. Until then, I see this only as fear-mongering. Jdiggans 00:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::I think almost all the same arguments in favour of gay marriage also can be used to support polygamy. It's a consensual, adult, relationship. Sex with children doesn't involve adults, and it's almost always not consensual and I would argue a child cannot grant consent anyway so it always involuntary. So it seems easy to show that allowing gay marriage is not going to lead to tolerating sexual predators. Also, these people assume gays are sick, so they believe tolerating gay marriage is going to lead to tolerating other sick people such as rapists, murderers, thieves, etc... Here's a problem: I see at least one "credible" source on homosexuality that isn't. Conservative Christian groups have a way of giving Christian opinion the same weight as peer-reviewed scientific journals. We see this in the evolution debate. Should there be some standard on weighing the credibility of articles? Should there be a "peer-review" tag or something like that? I have no problem people expressing opinions, but I DO have a problem with people claiming opinion or religion is scientific fact. Relevance Do you care if same-sex marriage is legal? Does the issue affect you? Why has the issue gotten so much pulicity? Does really matter all that much? :Why was this moved to talk? The questions at the beginning suggest that it's asking for discussion, but I think they're just meant as placeholders until someone filled the section out. I suggest putting it back to the article, but leaving the question part here, agreed? --Whosawhatsis 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not sure why we need a "relevance" section. What kind of relevance? To whom? Moreover those questions are the kind of question to ask in the talk page not in the main article. If you want to add it back please edit it to make it readable and not biased since I think we don't want to see counterpoints to relevance and counterpoint to counterpoints. -- Blackdog 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::(by the way we can see the relevance to the people involved in the arguments for and against presented in the article) -- Blackdog 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :::I can see your point, and the relevance to homosexuals who want to get married and to those who object on moral grounds is more than adequately represented already, but I feel that the relevance to those in neither camp (such as heterosexual civil libertarians, like myself) is not. I thought the idea of a section on how the issue is relevant to these people was a good idea, but perhaps there's a better way to work it in? --Whosawhatsis 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :::Oh, and sorry if the paragraph I added came off as biased. I tried really hard to avoid that, but the only positions I can think of that aren't covered are ambivalence (which needs very little explanation) and my own, which I tried to explain. --Whosawhatsis 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I guess is not that useful to add something like: "on the other hand there are people that don't care much about the issue but they might care about status of the law or status of the civil rights". That's kind of superfluous, since in for and against sections those issues were discussed, this would add only the "some people don't give a s%it about the issue" which is kind of useless especially if we can't quantify it: "70% of the people don't care". That's my take, if someone else finds it useful feel free to re-add the section. -- Blackdog 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::::: I reworked the paragraph to fit under the "Freedom and Individual Liberty" heading. If there are any other camps that we haven't thought of, they're kinda SOL, but I'm satisfied for now. --Whosawhatsis 02:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Not just pro/anti Since the purpose of this site is supposed to be to elevate the discussion above the level of the simplistic, emotion-filled arguments we all hear on TV, I've added two sections outside the "pro/anti" sections, because I believe they are neither. I've added a section on states rights and a section on civil unions only, because they are two solutions to the problem that, while they could/would (states rights/civil unions only, respectively) grant equal rights to people who want to join with partners of the same sex, they are neutral with respect to whether those things are "marriage," since in my opinion marriage is a very charged term with most people, both religiously and emotionally. In my opinion these are both "moderate" positions. Of course, I'm sure people on both extremes will be dissatisfied with either allowing gay "marriage" anywhere, or not calling unions between gays "marriage" everywhere. --Kg6cvv 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ---- Wonderful addition. The format on this page is so far the best I've seen on one issue. The content needs more work, and I think we need to cleanse the more personal voicings. I'd like to see all the arguments presented in a way that resembles wikipedia, but isn't worried about bias. You know what I mean? --Ferguson 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Homosexual Marriage I think I heard Kevin McCullough say that homosexual marriage is an oxymoron or there is no such thing because marriage is (by definition?) between a man and a woman. --Jeolmeun 19:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :That's a non-argument, because words are defined by how we use them. They are not static things, otherwise you'd get punched in the nose if you called someone "nice." The word "marriage" as it's used in contemporary America means all those things that come with marriage such as the right to visit someone in the hospital, inheritance rights, the right to file a joint tax return, etc. --Kg6cvv 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Why would people get the right to file a joint tax return? I think this is discriminatory to single people and to roommates. -- Blackdog 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Where'd my excellent point go? I figured since I was refining some of the arguments and trying to eliminate the counterpoint stuff that I'd explain what I did with some people's arguments. *I changed the argument asking whether it made a difference if it was natural and titled it the slippery slope...might not be the best of titles since a slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so someone try to think of something better. I also deleted the counterpoint under it because the slippery slope argument was already answered in the preceding essay.--Ferguson 22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) *I messed around with some of the natural order argument, trying to consolidate the information into an easier to read format.--Ferguson 22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) *Moved the editing requests to the talk page (see?). It seemed out of place on the article proper.--Ferguson 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) *Took this out, intending to put it in the 'against' essay, but now I'm not sure where it goes. While I love nuanced views that don't fit in anywhere, where do you think I should put this point? Blackdog, are you against gay marriage or are you for it and don't think the point someone was making was strong? I imagine this wiki as a place where someone can come and get information about issues easily, hopefully complete with all the nuance we're missing in broadcast news. To me, this point seems rather inconsequential in the argument, but I don't want to just delete it, but I don't understand where it fits except in some footnote. :So we leave all those false arguments without a way to provide counterpoints? For example my points don't fit in "against gay marriage" they were critique to the points for gay marriage. However now some false arguments at least in my view just lay on the main page. Also why only some counterpoints were removed? This doesn't seem fair -- Blackdog 23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Counterpoints Marriage is a State issue, not a personal or individual issue. People have the right to do anything they want, but "marriage" would not exist without the state, therefore you can't say that the States take a freedom from the citizens since that's not a "freedom" from the beginning, it's a State sponsored institution. The issue here is discrimination, not freedom, but that's a different discussion. -- Blackdog 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :This is patently ridiculous. Marriage existed long before governments, and it would exist without governments. It is merely a contractual agreement between two people to share their lives, children, and belongings. Whether or not the state exists to enforce this contract or it's merely by mutual recognition of others or private enforcement organizations is irrelevant. In addition, many people would claim that it's a church issue and not a state issue at all. --Kg6cvv 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Marriage is definetely not a church issue since some (many/most) atheists marry too. -- Blackdog 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :The 'In Favor' side already argues that Marriage is a legal status. You are not bringing up anything we haven't agreed with already by claiming that Marriage is a state issue. :Simply because GLBT persons are currently NOT free, does not mean that marriage is not an issue of personal freedoms. In the past, GLBT persons have not been free to marry the people of their choosing. Currently, that is changing, as many Nations and Massachusetts give GLBT persons this freedom. It is an issue of freedoms we don't have(and we feel we deserve), rather than freedoms we may loose.--Nhcollegedem 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::To make it clearer: marriage is a privilege not a freedom. (personally I would categorize it as a punishment). If someone cannot get a "privilege" it's not a issue of "personal freedom" it's an issue of discrimination, I think this was my nitpicking point. It's incorrect to say that GLBT persons are not "free" to marry, the option doesn't exist, it's like saying that "I'm not free to divorce my girlfriend" (I'm not married), that option to divorce somebody that I'm not married to doesn't exist, however it's not a freedom issue. -- Blackdog 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Attribution in the main entries I think it's appropriate to sign discussion page entries if you like, but in the main articles, why should people sign their comments? If the purpose is to use these documents to come to some sort of consensus, the arguments would probably better take place on the discussion page, and not the main page. Even if they do take place on the main page, it seems unnecessary to tag your name to your contributions, since this is already noted in the history changesets. (The exception would be the perspectives section) What is camplaign.wikia.com supposed to be? I'm not sure what we are trying to do here. I'm not sure we trying to do something like Wikipedia trying to keep a NPOV kind of language, I think we want to make our opinions known, how can we make our opinions known if our countrapoints are removed or moved to some irrelevant part in the page? How can we have a discussion if we are not supposed to sign our entries? So: # Can anyone explain to me what "Gay marriage" for example is supposed to be # Can anyone tell me how can we have a discussion if we can't have counterpoints? Will it be like a dialog between mutes? # Why not sign the entries, do we want to give the impression that this is the "consensus". --Blackdog 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Issue solved, official policy is not to have signatures in articles. -- Blackdog 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :While I agree that so far this is rather chaotic, it's not exactly old. That said, I'd like to see each issue's page represent, primarily: # a neutral description of the issue (e.g. 'Straight people have the following rights accorded to them under marriage: X, Y, Z. Gay people want these too but at the moment can't have them.') #:Why not use Wikipedia for that? I'm sure there are gay and gay marriage articles over there. -- Blackdog 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC) #::An excellent point -- perhaps each issue should just link to its corresponding entry in Wikipedia where applicable and rely on this site to catalog POVs on how to address the issue? # a 'consensus' collection of points of view on how to address the issue (e.g. 'Full Gay Marriage', 'Civil Partnerships', 'States Rights', 'Federal Marriage Ammendment') # a 'consensus' collection of counterpoints to each major point of view (e.g. 'Unintended Consequences of Gay Marriage', 'Limitation of Civil Partnerships', 'Chaotic Inter-State Legal Landscape', 'Disenfranchisement of GLBTs') :In addition, perhaps each page could contain a list of signed statements at the bottom in which individuals could present minority viewpoints not discussed in the main body. Not that I have a good answer as to how to define a minority viewpoint ... Jdiggans 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::I'm still not sure how to define a majority viewpoint. Thanks for response. -- Blackdog 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ---- I think it's very important for this wikia to be different than wikipedia. I also think it's very important that it disguishes itself from message boards. I saw it quickly becoming that, so I tried to introduce more order into the way arguments were presented. I'm very pleased with how it's looking now. It's easy to find both an argument and it's counter-point in the appropriate place. I think your ideas about different points of view are also very good. That's what this wikia is all about. I've always been hesitant to just go with a for/against thing, but the fact is, it's just easier to organize. But the whole idea is that we get more nuance and more viewpoints than we would otherwise. However, I think it's important to retain basic for/against arguments that other viewpoints can draw on. I would also recommend making a separate article for the marriage amendment, if there isn't one already. Cool, guys.--Ferguson 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Personal importance vs. society importance issue Gay marriage is obviously important to some people, or it would be a non-issue. It's a symbol of commitment, love, and it creaties a tie between the two people, whether it's spiritually, non-sprititually, or both. This isn't the place to discuss the validity of the marriage concept, anyways. --Anphanax 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I can fully understand that's important for the people involved, however I fail to see why the society (other people) should care about it. -- Blackdog 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Discussion *According to some of the leading GLBT rights groups and human rights groups I have talked to, the issue is not "gay" marriage versus "straight" marriage. What they are trying to gain is equal marriage. The goal is to make loving, monogamous marriage accessible to all consenting adults. Now, they argue, we have a system that is deliberately denying equality to GLBT people. -- Tumblingwall 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) : Even if this get "corrected" I feel like single people are discriminated against. Why only married people (gay or straight) should get tax cuts, what did they do to deserve that? Why should they have some facilities in adoptions? What about the rest of benefits? :: I believe the purpose of marriage, on the level of government is to promote bonding and stability amongst the population. The reason why married people get tax breaks etc. is because it helps provide incentive for them to form stable families and units. Single people aren't as easily trackable (until recently...) and don't "settle down" in a place as long. Without having children or a spouse all you have to think about is oneself... :::Why would government promote "bonding" or "stability"? -- Blackdog 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Argument for transforming marriages into civil unions for all people This is probably not a practical option considering the widespread respect and influence that marriage has in our culture, but it may be useful to include in discussion to remember that conferring legal status to marriage is far from inevitable. Our society has decided that we want marriage to have legal status, so we also have to decide how to handle that so as not to confer unfair advantage to certain people. :Are you saying that "our society" cannot change its mind? Isn't that what the political process is all about? And movies have a huge cultural influence as well. Should the government be making movies? --Kg6cvv 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) If someone wants to make a point for gay marriage they have to: # make a point why there's a need for "marriage" in general # prove that that need holds if we extend the "marriage" meaning to gay relationships. ---- C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity discusses marriage, and his argument - which I agree with so am (poorly) reproducing here - is that there should be a distinction made between civil marriages and religious marriages. With high divorce rate as a primary indicator, marriages as implemented by the government today are, in fact, civil marriages. We do not - and can be argued never have - held people to the oath of "till death do us part". In this sense, the religious side is just for show. Lewis asks for a large distinction to be made between religious marriages, specifically Christian, and civil ones. He sees no reason that civil marriages are held up to a Christian standard, and by making this distinction we can not only more effectively separate church and state, but also clarify exactly our intentions when getting married. --Bubaflub 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A first step in differentiating the two (civil vs. religious marriages) would be naming. Civil marriages could simply be called "civil unions," providing all the legal benefits of marriage, without any religious connotations. --Midian 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Marriage only has "religious connotations" to those who are religious. My marriage was performed by a judge and has no "religious connotations." The whole question of gay marriage is a legal issue. As has repeatedly been stated here, "marriage" is a legal term. In fact, it's a key term in hundreds of legal opinions and statutes. Unless you intend to rewrite the last 200 years of American common law, and hundreds of state and federal statutes, it is impractical to think that simply creating a new term "civil union" can fully embrace the legal rights created by the term "marriage." --Dan robinson 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Another argument for gay marriage/civil unions? It's a point that I've never seen used in the gay marriage debate, but I think that one of the arguments for gay marriage or civil unions should be that they should have the same social, economic and heath benefits for gay couples as has been documented for heterosexual couples. For example, persons in a heterosexual marriage are much more likely to own their own homes than single individuals, are more likely to own businesses, and are more likely to be involved in the community. My best guess, from observing the stable gay couples that I've known, is that this is very likely true for gay couples as well. There are many studies that have documented how married couples benefit the community, and how being married benefit individuals who are married. Gay couples, whether sanctioned by the state or not, should probably show many of the same benefits. Having some sort of state sanction for gay couples should help to encourage those benefits. BlankVerse 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)